If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How does one define batting 'talent'?

This word is very popular in cricket forums ,but i never understood what exactly it implies.I heard andy roberts in a recent interview scathingly attack the concept of talent by saying when mediocrities play mediocrities,some inevitably perform well and often get labelled as talented.Do you guys subscribe to this view?

What makes a great batsman.I personally have divided a bastman's ability into 4 categories -

3.MENTAL TEMPERAMENT -
Includes concentration(to play long innings),ability to handle pressure,adaptability to survive according to conditions in the middle and opponents tactics , and focus.

4.FITNESS -
I believe this to be the least important from these 4 attributes of a batsman because cricket is a skill based game and we have seen many unfit great batsmen.But its importance is increasing rapidly these days with the amount of cricket played.I believe fitness can make a good batsman a better batsman,but it can't make a good batsman out of an average/bad one.

Overall i think the combination of technique and natural ability as described above is what most people are trying to describe as 'talent' in a batsman.I'd like to know how you guys define batting talent in a clear way.

This word is very popular in cricket forums ,but i never understood what exactly it implies.I heard andy roberts in a recent interview scathingly attack the concept of talent by saying when mediocrities play mediocrities,some inevitably perform well and often get labelled as talented.Do you guys subscribe to this view?

What makes a great batsman.I personally have divided a bastman's ability into 4 categories -

3.MENTAL TEMPERAMENT -
Includes concentration(to play long innings),ability to handle pressure,adaptability to survive according to conditions in the middle and opponents tactics , and focus.

4.FITNESS -
I believe this to be the least important from these 4 attributes of a batsman because cricket is a skill based game and we have seen many unfit great batsmen.But its importance is increasing rapidly these days with the amount of cricket played.I believe fitness can make a good batsman a better batsman,but it can't make a good batsman out of an average/bad one.

Overall i think the combination of technique and natural ability as described above is what most people are trying to describe as 'talent' in a batsman.I'd like to know how you guys define batting talent in a clear way.

Tbh in cricket,word "talent" is generally used for players who has underachieved or underperformed.(for 90% cases like Rohit Sharma etc)

I think almost all great players are talented.

Batsmen who are rated as underachieved talented player generally have this:

To be frank, even if a player has Natural ability, if he does not have the other 3 you mention it will count to nothing. So Technique, Temperament and Fitness are the most important aspects of cricket. Steve Waugh was never pleasing to the eye but was one of the best batters under pressure and almost singlehandedly dragged Australia to the 1999 world cup finals. I would prefer that than someone who scores a pretty 50 with his natural ability and gets out.

To be frank, even if a player has Natural ability, if he does not have the other 3 you mention it will count to nothing. So Technique, Temperament and Fitness are the most important aspects of cricket. Steve Waugh was never pleasing to the eye but was one of the best batters under pressure and almost singlehandedly dragged Australia to the 1999 world cup finals. I would prefer that than someone who scores a pretty 50 with his natural ability and gets out.

Natural ability is the most important. There are thousands of cricketers with good temperament, fitness and technique. What separates them is their natural talent.

At the top level, it matters a little less though. Rohit has more natural ability than Kohli, but isn't nearly as good.

Natural ability is the most important. There are thousands of cricketers with good temperament, fitness and technique. What separates them is their natural talent.

At the top level, it matters a little less though. Rohit has more natural ability than Kohli, but isn't nearly as good.

Natural ability allows you to get noticed and get selected but in the long run if you don't have the other 3 qualities, you will be discarded soon. If you take all the great players, they were more than the natural ability they possessed. What would you call someone like Shivnarine Chanderpaul? Steven Waugh? or even Rahul Dravid? Hard working cricketers who had great temperament, did not probably possess the natural ability of a Sachin Tendulkar or Brian Lara or Rickey Ponting but they conquered it by the other 3 qualities.

In my eyes "talent" gets used very loosely around the cricketing world. I guess to generalize it a bit every player that plays international games has to be talented as they were picked out of millions... so in that sense talented yes....

when it comes to looking purely amongst the players.... good alrounders (above decent in all facets of games) are talented in my eyes... or batsmen or bowlers who are miles ahead of other purists... rest are dime a dozen in the game...

and it is true that when yiu have mediocre players playing amongst each others you will have inflated avg's... and they come crashing down... similarly when u r playing amongst high lvls in domestic you may have lower avg's but on call ups they flourish bcoz they can handle the pressure.

There is no strict definition. In my view when your talented your natural reaction is better than someone with less talent. That alone is not enough. Reacting to a ball getting out early is not talent. But Reacting and sustaining for longer period defines a hugely talented player. From top of my head. Sehwag is one such. Lot of players are talented. But they also become disciplined over a time. Some people practice so hard that they can mimic natural reaction by persistency. They acquire talent through practice. You cannot imitate Sehwag. You can imitate Dravid even Sachin.